Yes, They Do Cling to the Multiverse Because it Conforms to Their Favored Narrative (or at Least They Think it Does)

_{Barry Arrington

June 21, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a comment to a prior post daveS writes:

It’s not that string theory and the multiverse are known to be false yet persist because they conform to favored narratives.

The existence of the multiverse is not known to be false. Nor is it known to be true. It is literally unknowable by scientific means, because, by definition, the only universe we can test empirically (i.e., by the methods employed by scientists when they are doing science) is the one we are in.

Yet, it is undeniable that the non-scientific idea of the multiverse persists among many scientists, some of whom go so far as to push ( or at least imply) the clearly false idea that the existence of the multiverse is a scientific (as opposed to a metaphysical) proposition. How does one account for this?

We account for it in the same way that we account for the fact that the steady state universe was being pushed long after its “sell by” date had expired. Materialist origins myths (in both their biological and cosmological varieties) fare very poorly in the glaring light of the facts if there is only one universe that has a finite age. If that is the case, the god of chance/deep time has not had nearly enough time to do his work (even if one gets past the “something from nothing” conundrum at the beginning).

Therefore, the non-scientific multiverse idea indeed persists among materialist scientists – though its truth is unknowable – because it conforms to a favored narrative, and that narrative is the chance/deep time dunnit origins narrative. The irony is that it does not really conform to that narrative, as has been explained numerous times in these pages.

Comments

DNA Can Discern Between Two Quantum States, Research Shows – June 2011 Excerpt: — DNA — can discern between quantum states known as spin. – The researchers fabricated self-assembling, single layers of DNA attached to a gold substrate. They then exposed the DNA to mixed groups of electrons with both directions of spin. Indeed, the team’s results surpassed expectations: The biological molecules reacted strongly with the electrons carrying one of those spins, and hardly at all with the others. The longer the molecule, the more efficient it was at choosing electrons with the desired spin, while single strands and damaged bits of DNA did not exhibit this property. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110331104014.htm Classical and Quantum Information Channels in Protein Chain - Dj. Koruga, A. Tomi?, Z. Ratkaj, L. Matija - 2006 Abstract: Investigation of the properties of peptide plane in protein chain from both classical and quantum approach is presented. We calculated interatomic force constants for peptide plane and hydrogen bonds between peptide planes in protein chain. On the basis of force constants, displacements of each atom in peptide plane, and time of action we found that the value of the peptide plane action is close to the Planck constant. This indicates that peptide plane from the energy viewpoint possesses synergetic classical/quantum properties. Consideration of peptide planes in protein chain from information viewpoint also shows that protein chain possesses classical and quantum properties. So, it appears that protein chain behaves as a triple dual system: (1) structural - amino acids and peptide planes, (2) energy - classical and quantum state, and (3) information - classical and quantum coding. Based on experimental facts of protein chain, we proposed from the structure-energy-information viewpoint its synergetic code system. http://www.scientific.net/MSF.518.491
That ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement, which conclusively demonstrates that ‘information’ in its ‘quantum form’ is completely transcendent of any time and space constraints (Bell, Aspect, Leggett, Zeilinger, etc..), should be found in molecular biology on such a massive scale, in every DNA and protein molecule, is a direct empirical falsification of Darwinian claims, for how can the ‘non-local’ quantum entanglement ‘effect’ in biology possibly be explained by a material (matter/energy) cause when the quantum entanglement effect falsified material particles as its own causation in the first place? Appealing to the probability of various 'random' configurations of material particles, as Darwinism does, simply will not help since a timeless/spaceless cause must be supplied which is beyond the capacity of the material particles themselves to supply!
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php Closing the last Bell-test loophole for photons - Jun 11, 2013 Excerpt:– requiring no assumptions or correction of count rates – that confirmed quantum entanglement to nearly 70 standard deviations.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-06-bell-test-loophole-photons.html etc.. etc..
In other words, to give a coherent explanation for an effect that is shown to be completely independent of any time and space constraints one is forced to appeal to a cause that is itself not limited to time and space! i.e. Put more simply, you cannot explain a effect by a cause that has been falsified by the very same effect you are seeking to explain! Improbability arguments of various ‘special’ configurations of material particles, which have been a staple of the arguments against neo-Darwinism, simply do not apply since the cause is not within the material particles in the first place! And although Naturalists have proposed various, far fetched, naturalistic scenarios to try to get around the Theistic implications of quantum non-locality, none of the ‘far fetched’ naturalistic solutions, in themselves, are compatible with the reductive materialism that undergirds neo-Darwinian thought.
"[while a number of philosophical ideas] may be logically consistent with present quantum mechanics, ...materialism is not." Eugene Wigner Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism - video playlist https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_&v=4C5pq7W5yRM Why Quantum Theory Does Not Support Materialism By Bruce L Gordon, Ph.D Excerpt: The underlying problem is this: there are correlations in nature that require a causal explanation but for which no physical explanation is in principle possible. Furthermore, the nonlocalizability of field quanta entails that these entities, whatever they are, fail the criterion of material individuality. So, paradoxically and ironically, the most fundamental constituents and relations of the material world cannot, in principle, be understood in terms of material substances. Since there must be some explanation for these things, the correct explanation will have to be one which is non-physical – and this is plainly incompatible with any and all varieties of materialism. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbscience.aspx?pageid=8589952939
Thus, as far as empirical science itself is concerned, Neo-Darwinism is directly falsified in its claim that information is ‘emergent’ from a reductive materialist basis. To repeat Feynman's quote:
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
Verse and Music:
Psalm 139:13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. Creed - My Own Prison - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBqjGd3fHQ
bornagain77_{June 26, 2015
June
06
Jun
26
26
2015
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT}

Besides dis-concordant sequences falsifying Darwinian claims, I hold that an even a greater falsification threshold was met with the finding that all of the foundational presuppositions behind 'bottom up' neo-Darwinian claims are now known to be false. Denis Noble, President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, puts the history of neo-Darwinism, and current empirical situation with neo-Darwinism, as such:
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Noble – video https://vimeo.com/115822429 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
Casey Luskin summarizes Noble's position here:
"Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology": Another Peer-Reviewed Paper Takes Aim at Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin March 31, 2015 Excerpt: Noble doesn't mince words: "It is not only the standard 20th century views of molecular genetics that are in question. Evolutionary theory itself is already in a state of flux (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Noble, 2006, 2011; Beurton et al. 2008; Pigliucci & Muller, 2010; Gissis & Jablonka, 2011; Shapiro, 2011). In this article, I will show that all the central assumptions of the Modern Synthesis (often also called Neo-Darwinism) have been disproved." Noble then recounts those assumptions: (1) that "genetic change is random," (2) that "genetic change is gradual," (3) that "following genetic change, natural selection leads to particular gene variants (alleles) increasing in frequency within the population," and (4) that "inheritance of acquired characteristics is impossible." He then cites examples that refute each of those assumptions,,, He then proposes a new and radical model of biology called the "Integrative Synthesis," where genes don't run the show and all parts of an organism -- the genome, the cell, the body plan, everything -- is integrated. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/03/physiology_is_r094821.html
Stephen Meyer puts the failure for 'bottom up' neo-Darwinian explanations like this:
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins and Information for Body Plans - video https://vimeo.com/91322260 Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,, ‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
Body plans simply are not reducible to DNA sequences as is presupposed in neo-Darwinism
Body Plans Are Not Mapped-Out by the DNA - Jonathan Wells - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meR8Hk5q_EM
In fact in direct contradiction to Darwinian thought,, it is becoming more and more apparent that it is 'the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism'.
Ask an Embryologist: Genomic Mosaicism - Jonathan Wells - February 23, 2015 Excerpt: humans have a "few thousand" different cell types. Here is my simple question: Does the DNA sequence in one cell type differ from the sequence in another cell type in the same person?,,, The simple answer is: We now know that there is considerable variation in DNA sequences among tissues, and even among cells in the same tissue. It's called genomic mosaicism. In the early days of developmental genetics, some people thought that parts of the embryo became different from each other because they acquired different pieces of the DNA from the fertilized egg. That theory was abandoned,,, ,,,(then) "genomic equivalence" -- the idea that all the cells of an organism (with a few exceptions, such as cells of the immune system) contain the same DNA -- became the accepted view. I taught genomic equivalence for many years. A few years ago, however, everything changed. With the development of more sophisticated techniques and the sampling of more tissues and cells, it became clear that genetic mosaicism is common. I now know as an embryologist,,,Tissues and cells, as they differentiate, modify their DNA to suit their needs. It's the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/02/ask_an_embryolo093851.html
In fact, DNA/amino acid sequences, in many cases, do not even have a primarily direct effect on determining the overall shape of proteins and DNA, much less do DNA sequences determine the overall shape/body plan (i.e. 'form') of an entire organism:
The insurmountable problem of ‘form/shape’ for ‘bottom up’ neo-Darwinian explanations has now been demonstrated by a few of different methods. - May 2015 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stuart-newman-non-linear-evolution/#comment-566667
And although the preceding evidence is certainly very compelling empirical evidence that the 'bottom up' claims of neo-Darwinists are false, there is one more line of empirical evidence that falsifies neo-Darwinian claims even better still: Darwinian presuppositions hold that all the information in life is merely an ‘emergent’ property of a material basis, but it is now found that beyond space and time, (i.e. non-local), ‘quantum information’, which is not reducible to a material basis, is in molecular biology.
Quantum Information/Entanglement In DNA - short video https://vimeo.com/92405752 Does DNA Have Telepathic Properties?-A Galaxy Insight – 2009 Excerpt: DNA has been found to have a bizarre ability to put itself together, even at a distance, when according to known science it shouldn’t be able to.,,, The recognition of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits, occurs in a way unrecognized by science. There is no known reason why the DNA is able to combine the way it does, and from a current theoretical standpoint this feat should be chemically impossible. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/the-dna-mystery-scientists-baffled-by-telepathic-abilities.html
bornagain77_{June 26, 2015
June
06
Jun
26
26
2015
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

Jerry in 18 and 24 claims that
"Darwinism can be falsified" by "an examination of genomes and a determination of what is different between two different populations and if there is similarity between non coding areas with coding areas"
While that it is a reasonable threshold for falsification, Dr. Hunter holds that the 'comparing sequences' falsification threshold has been met and did not so much as put a dent in one evolutionist's certainty that Darwinism is true:
Evolution Professor: Orphans Not a Problem for Evolution? – Cornelius Hunter – May 2014 Excerpt: …practically every major prediction of evolution has failed. For example, one of those puzzles was the finding of long stretches of identical, unconstrained DNA in otherwise distant species. Such a finding, an evolutionist had told me years earlier, would falsify evolution, period. His point was that evolution was falsifiable. That was yet another false claim. That finding of identical, unconstrained DNA did not so much as put a dent in the evolutionist’s certainty (and yes, he is still believes in evolution). http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2014/05/evolution-professor-orphans-not-problem.html
As to Dr. Hunter's claim that 'practically every major prediction of evolution has failed', Dr. Hunter's following site has a fairly comprehensive summary of the major failed predictions of Darwinism.
Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter https://sites.google.com/site/darwinspredictions/
In fact, in regards to 'comparing sequences falsifying Darwinian claims', a greater falsification of Darwinian claims in this area of investigation came from comparing regulatory regions of DNA between two different species:
Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013 Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins 2013), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131017144632.htm MicroRNA Study: “We Liberated Ourselves” From the Evolution Requirement - And Had Great Success - Cornelius Hunter - March 2, 2015 Excerpt: In our effort to further characterize the human miRNA repertoire, we liberated ourselves from the conservation requirement: not surprisingly then, 56.7% of our newly discovered miRNAs are human-specific whereas 94.4% are primate- specific. Considering that many miRNA studies to date have focused on seeking and analyzing conserved miRNAs, it is not surprising that, of the human miRNAs in miRBase, we found a larger fraction to be conserved in rodents and invertebrates. These findings strongly suggest the possibility of a wide-ranging species-specific miRNA-ome that has yet to be characterized." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2015/03/microrna-study-we-liberated-ourselves.html "Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes." Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video https://vimeo.com/106012299 Richard Sternberg PhD – podcast – On Human Origins: Is Our Genome Full of Junk DNA? Part 2. (Major Differences in higher level chromosome spatial organization) http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2014/11/on-human-origins-is-our-genome-full-of-junk-dna-pt-2/
Moreover, the consequences of mutating a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit 'are always catastrophically bad'
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013 Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." - Eric Davidson http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/12/a_listeners_gui079811.html Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video Text from one of the Saddleback slides: 1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows. 2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring. 3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo. Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes. http://www.saddleback.com/mc/m/7ece8/
Thus, where Darwinists most need plasticity in the genome to be viable as a theory, (i.e. developmental Gene Regulatory Networks), is the place where mutations are found to be 'always catastrophically bad'. Yet, it is exactly in this area of the genome (i.e. regulatory networks) where substantial, ‘orders of magnitude’, differences are found between even supposedly closely related species. Needless to say, this is the exact opposite finding for what Darwinism would have predicted for what should have been found in the genome. If Darwinism were a normal science, instead of being a unfalsifiable 'blind faith' religion of atheists, this finding, by itself, should have, by all scientific rights, been more than enough to falsify neo-Darwinian claims.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
bornagain77_{June 26, 2015
June
06
Jun
26
26
2015
05:31 AM
5
05
31
AM
PDT}

"I guess some are doing it now but not with the objectives I have laid out." This is in the direction of my exploration. It seems to me that some specific parameters for such observations could be documented and tried, otherwise we are left with just more guessing. Andrewasauber_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

This leads me to a question. Has an experiment that hypothetically would falsify evolution been performed?
It is not an experiment but an examination of genomes and a determination of what is different between two different populations and if there is similarity between non coding areas with coding areas. I guess some are doing it now but not with the objectives I have laid out. I believe there have been some examinations done since past OPs have mentioned comparisons of different genomes for similar DNA sequences.jerry_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

And in some verses, you would win that bet.
:odaveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
08:35 AM
8
08
35
AM
PDT}

daveS: Personally, I would bet against the existence of the multiverse. And in some verses, you would win that bet.Zachriel_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT}

groovamos, By "it", I meant the OP, rather than the multiverse. Personally, I would bet against the existence of the multiverse.daveS_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT}

DaveS: the multiverse is not known to be false, and I therefore don’t have issues with it. The multiverse is fantastic. It will always be fantastic - due to its nature. Whoops, I meant dearth of nature. Thing is, I have a big issue with fantasy posing as natural science. I would think almost everyone posting here would too.groovamos_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT}

"If gradual processes are responsible for the changes between species, then these processes that led to the new species should be visible in similar species. There should be successful transitions in one species but not in the other." This leads me to a question. Has an experiment that hypothetically would falsify evolution been performed? It seems to me that 'falsify' requires something that can actually be performed. So I'm just asking. Andrewasauber_{June 23, 2015
June
06
Jun
23
23
2015
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Darwinism is not falsifiable. There is no observation that would cause the true believers to abandon it. They would just tweak the theory to accommodate it, as they have done many times before.
There definitely is a way of falsifying Darwinian evolution. If gradual processes are responsible for the changes between species, then these processes that led to the new species should be visible in similar species. There should be successful transitions in one species but not in the other. What are the differences between similar species, They are unique protein transcribing regions in one but not in the other or there are differences in regulatory networks of the two species. Both of these are discernible with analysis of their genomes. If a unique protein transcribing regions is in one species but not the other then a similar but non-transcribing regions must be in the other species. This second species must have the elements of the protein transcribing region in it but it never proceeded to the point where the new region successfully transcribed the protein. Essentially this second species has a failed region that might have ended up with the same coding regions of the other but the necessary mutations never happened to this species/population. If such sequences are not there then how did the unique transcribing region arise? Certainly not by chance after the populations separated for some reason. My guess is that examination of the genomes would indicate some of these regions arising naturally but that most will not show such processes. It will all be in the genomes and will either support gradual processes or not. Or were the gradual processes, deterioration of sequences and not the building of protein generating sequences. So modern science has within its capabilities the ability to verify this one way or the other.
So Darwinism can be falsified.
A good set of species to examine are ungulates. They are all fairly similar and it should be easy to differentiate the genomes to see what makes different species. From Wikipedia: ungulates are typically herbivorous (though some species are omnivorous, such as pigs), and many employ specialized gut bacteria to allow them to digest cellulose, as in the ruminants. They inhabit a wide range of habitats, from jungles to plains to rivers. They are all over the world so differences between continents should be informative of the differences arsing from separate populations.jerry_{June 22, 2015
June
06
Jun
22
22
2015
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

F/N: Avi Sion, on what he descriptively calls the principle of universality: http://www.thelogician.net/6_reflect/6_Book_1/6a_chapter_02.htm >> We might . . . ask – can there be a world without any ‘uniformities’? A world of universal difference, with no two things the same in any respect whatever is unthinkable. Why? Because to so characterize the world would itself be an appeal to uniformity. A uniformly non-uniform world is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, we must admit some uniformity to exist in the world. The world need not be uniform throughout, for the principle of uniformity to apply. It suffices that some uniformity occurs. Given this degree of uniformity, however small, we logically can and must talk about generalization and particularization. There happens to be some ‘uniformities’; therefore, we have to take them into consideration in our construction of knowledge. The principle of uniformity is thus not a wacky notion, as Hume seems to imply . . . . The uniformity principle is not a generalization of generalization; it is not a statement guilty of circularity, as some critics contend. So what is it? Simply this: when we come upon some uniformity in our experience or thought, we may readily assume that uniformity to continue onward until and unless we find some evidence or reason that sets a limit to it. Why? Because in such case the assumption of uniformity already has a basis, whereas the contrary assumption of difference has not or not yet been found to have any. The generalization has some justification; whereas the particularization has none at all, it is an arbitrary assertion. It cannot be argued that we may equally assume the contrary assumption (i.e. the proposed particularization) on the basis that in past events of induction other contrary assumptions have turned out to be true (i.e. for which experiences or reasons have indeed been adduced) – for the simple reason that such a generalization from diverse past inductions is formally excluded by the fact that we know of many cases [[of inferred generalisations; try: "we can make mistakes in inductive generalisation . . . "] that have not been found worthy of particularization to date . . . . If we follow such sober inductive logic, devoid of irrational acts, we can be confident to have the best available conclusions in the present context of knowledge. We generalize when the facts allow it, and particularize when the facts necessitate it. We do not particularize out of context, or generalize against the evidence or when this would give rise to contradictions . . .[[Logical and Spiritual Reflections, BK I Hume's Problems with Induction, Ch 2 The principle of induction.]>> KFkairosfocus_{June 22, 2015
June
06
Jun
22
22
2015
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

GUN, I think the point is that empirically grounded, inductively arrived at scientific ideas should be subject to empirical tests. Such a claim about the observable world that is not subject to test becomes untrustworthy as there is no basis for its reliability. Wider worldview claims are subject to comparative difficulties analysis on factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. And at worldviews level, there are no restrictions as to what candidates may come up -- e.g. anti-theistic prejudice (as is now common with advocates of evolutionary materialist scientism) is inadmissible. Scientism in essence, is the self-falsifying epistemological -- thus, philosophical -- view that only "scientific" claims and approaches ground knowledge or serious knowledge. It is not scientism to take seriously the point that scientific ideas are subject to empirical test. KF PS: Let me add, that empirical reliability per reasonable, convergent tests is important in grounding practical use of theories in engineering or medicine etc. So, the higher the risk of harm, the more stringent should be the testing. And behind, is the principle that there is a tendency of the cosmos to behave in a lawful, consistent way, such that we may confidently project patterns to fresh cases. Popperian white/black swans. With the swans of Australia breaking a generalisation. But also, a statistical pattern is subject to rare exceptions to the typical, and this is a part of the limitations.kairosfocus_{June 22, 2015
June
06
Jun
22
22
2015
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

News @ 11:
Barry, I find Darwinism difficult to discuss in this context because it’s so hard to find Darwinian claims that are subject to falsifiability . . .
Join the club. Popper himself described Darwinism not as science but as a "metaphysical research program." Though he later backed off on that assertion under pressure. Darwinism is not falsifiable. There is no observation that would cause the true believers to abandon it. They would just tweak the theory to accommodate it, as they have done many times before. Barry Arrington_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT}

I tend to think that an unfalsifiable theory is *for practical purposes* false.
Interesting, Denyse seems to be backing something that I often see as the definition of "scientism". The view that if something doesn't fit a scientific theory that it is false, or at least essentially false. (Although there are several other definitions out there.) Jerry,
There are some variations of the multiverse theory that probably could be shown to be false.
True. I wouldn't say that there's an actual multiverse theory. I can't envision anything that would cause headlines of "Multiverse disproven". Instead, there are a number theories that, if true, apparently have a multiverse (of one type or another) as a consequence.goodusername_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT}

How many universes must the multiverse have spawned to make the properties of this universe distinguishable from a miracle?Mung_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT}

There are some variations of the multiverse theory that probably could be shown to be false. Or maybe just absurd or that they are in conflict with what their advocates want. For example, is there a limit on the multiverse number of universes. If it is finite then the chances of a process generating our universe get infinitesimally small. If there is no limit on the number then that will lead to absurdities because one cannot rule out any specific universe including one that would lead to a being that would have all the characteristics of the Judeo/Christian God. Either way it is not a viable proposition as an explanation for what we observe.jerry_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

Okay, Barry, I hope I am beginning to see what you mean: The Big Bang theory is treated as true for practical purposes even by people who don't like it because, although current evidence supports it, it could be shown to be false. So it is a theory in science. The multiverse is not falsifiable in the sense that no evidence in this universe could rule out the existence of other universes somehow, somewhere. This contrasts with fine tuning, which is a matter of evidence in this world, no? (It could, of course, be falsified by a number of means. But claims that - in principle - there must be many flopped universes out there that account for the accidental appearance of fine tuning in this one involve invoking unfalsifiable claims against a falsifiable one. Do they not? How would one find a flopped universe? Barry, I find Darwinism difficult to discuss in this context because it's so hard to find Darwinian claims that are subject to falsifiability that haven't already been falsified. Except for the ones that don't make sense.* It feels like a popular belief that can't be falsified because it was never believed on the basis of evidence anyway. * Like that the human and chimp genomes are 99% similar, which - if true - would considerably reduce the value of genetics in predicting anything. Giving chimps legal personhood will not turn the pumpkin into a coach either.News_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

The other irony with the multiverse and other chance + deep time ideas, is that it makes flying spaghetti monsters, tooth fairies, leprechauns etc...not only possible, but highly probable. It's the nature of adding infinite amount of time + infinite amount of possibilities to the equation, when you do that and you assume life (and other "forms" of "life") can just spontaneously arise, then you're covering a wide range of miraculous oddities. In conclusion, the flying spaghetti monster which has an IQ of over 9000!!! has created God under the materialist position.computerist_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

Seversky @ 7:
Some scientists seem to find it a very interesting idea, a conjecture worth exploring. That’s enough to make it a scientific idea even if it doesn’t amount to a hypothesis or a theory.
So if some scientists find ID to be a very interesting idea, a conjecture worth exploring, that's enough to make it a scientific idea even it it doesn't amount to a hypothesis or a theory? OK. Thanks for accepting ID as a scientific idea. I had thought you disputed this. Thanks for clarifying.Barry Arrington_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

News @ 4: Not quite. A non-falsifiable proposition (using "falsifiable" in the sense Popper used it in The Logic of Scientific Discovery) is by no means equivalent to a false proposition. Some non-falsifiable propositions may be perfectly true. For example, the proposition "the God of the Bible exists" is non-falsifiable. Nevertheless, you believe it is true (as do I). When I say the proposition is non-falsifiable, I do not mean to imply that it is false in a practical sense or in any other sense. I mean to say that, in principle, the proposition cannot be tested empirically and demonstrated to be false. You write:
The Big Bang theory is a good example of an unpopular theory that got itself verified, and thus is accepted for practical purposes even by people who hate it.
Again, not quite. You are here suggesting verification as a demarcation criterion. The whole point of Popper’s falsification criterion is the inadequacy of verification as a criterion. This is where his famous “black swan” example helps to illustrate the issue. The statement “all swans are white” is a scientific statement, according to Popper, not because it has been verified in an absolute sense, because it is, in principle, impossible to verify such a proposition in an absolute sense. Why? Because we cannot travel the length, breadth and height of the entire universe to examine every single swan in the universe to ensure that they are all white. Therefore, no matter how many swans we examine who turn out to be white, the matter remains provisional (Popper insists that all scientific theories, no matter how well established given past observations, are always provisional). Yet “all swans are white” is, nevertheless, a scientific proposition. Why? Because it is, in principle, subject to being proved to be false. How? A single observation of a black swan would destroy the theory. Thus, a billion observations of white swans are insufficient to “verify.” A single observation of a black swan is sufficient to falsify. Has the Big Bang been verified? No, it has not. The Big Bang is a scientific theory not because it has been verified. It is a scientific theory because, like the white swan proposition, it is, in principle, possible to prove it false. Like the white swan proposition, this is so even if it really is true that all swans are white (it actually is not true; but that is beside the point). In other words, the Big Bang theory may well be true even though it is falsifiable. The fact that the Big Bang is falsifiable does not mean it is false. It means that it is scientifically risky. A single observation that does not conform to the theory could destroy it. Consider Berlinski’s famous “leaf trembling” statement:
I disagree [with Paul R. Gross’ assertion] that Darwin’s theory is as “solid as any explanation in science.” Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?
Berlinski is not saying that either theory is likely to be shattered any time soon. He is saying that the theories make risky predictions. No number of verifying observations are sufficient to establish either theory as an absolute certainty (i.e, “verify” it). A single non-conforming observation could shatter it. ______________________ *I refer to Popper because his falsification demarcation criterion is the most commonly accepted today. Indeed, in the United States it has the force of law (perhaps the only philosophical proposition with that distinction). There are other theories. None of them has gained the acceptance of Popper’s.Barry Arrington_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT}

Yet, it is undeniable that the non-scientific idea of the multiverse persists among many scientists, some of whom go so far as to push ( or at least imply) the clearly false idea that the existence of the multiverse is a scientific (as opposed to a metaphysical) proposition. How does one account for this?
Some scientists seem to find it a very interesting idea, a conjecture worth exploring. That's enough to make it a scientific idea even if it doesn't amount to a hypothesis or a theory. And what's your problem, anyway? Why should it matter to you if a few physicists play around with an idea that, according to you, can't be tested and would seem to have no practical effects whatsoever?Seversky_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:41 PM
2
02
41
PM
PDT}

And besides, even if multiverse theory is true, and there is no reason to believe that it is true (it's not known to be false is not a reason), it still doesn't mean that our universe had no cause or could magically poof into being out of nothing nor does it mean that the multiverse had no cause or could magically poof into being out of nothing. So once again materialists are left with "no reason/no explanation" whereas theists can offer a reason/explanation where supposedly none can be given, so materialists then don't get to just beg the question. Not of you want to be rational about it anyways. I'm always willing to allow materialists their irrationality, but so few are willing to admit it. Who was it that called humans the irrational animal?Mung_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT}

News, maybe we should say it's not even false.Mung_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT}

Thanks for clarifying that, Barry, and helping me understand. Bear with me a little longer: I tend to think that an unfalsifiable theory is *for practical purposes* false. I cannot prove that the White House is not hiding space aliens. But for practical purposes, I treat the theory as false. That is, lacking vast reams of knowledge and needing to make decisions about what to assume, one must assign a status with respect to a theory's credibility. So when I think of the multiverse as a false theory, I mean that a theory that cannot be falsified is best treated, for practical purposes, as false. That which can't be falsified can't be verified either, and if it can't be verified, I do not see how it forms part of science. The Big Bang theory is a good example of an unpopular theory that got itself verified, and thus is accepted for practical purposes even by people who hate it. See: Big Bang exterminator wanted, will train The evil eye, by contrast, cannot be disproven, but it can safely be ignored. See: Imagine a world of religions that naturalism might indeed be able to explain So, because i cannot verify it - to say nothing of falsify it - I can treat it as a false theory of disease. Now, I would welcome clarification on these points, as I find these outer reaches of science quite confusing, compared to more everyday matters of fact and evidence accessible to the person who pays attention.News_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

I'll just note this post doesn't contradict my statement, since we both agree that the existence of the multiverse is not known to be false, and I therefore don't have issues with it.daveS_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Barry Arrington:
The existence of the multiverse is not known to be false. Nor is it known to be true. It is literally unknowable by scientific means, because, by definition, the only universe we can test empirically (i.e., by the methods employed by scientists when they are doing science) is the one we are in.
The multiverse may not be known to be false by the world at large but it is logically false nonetheless, IMO.Mapou_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

I think the problem is that irony did not come along until much later in the evolution of the cosmos.Mung_{June 21, 2015
June
06
Jun
21
21
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply